more investment in transportation including the creation of the world class high-speed rail system. and as the chairman of the subcommittee on the surface transportation, i applaud the dedication to strengthening the service in the country. that's why i believe we've also got to invest in projects that would strengthen our economy like the gateway tunnell to new york. this visionary project will serve both commuters of new jersey and high-speed rail passengers throughout the northeast corridor. house republicans say we can't afford these investments right now. the shortsighted view in my estimation ignores the past achievements like the george washington bridge which was built during the the depression and thank goodness they did it. it helped provide jobs and

movement within the northeast corridor. their approach also it was our responsibility to help americans get back to work especially in the construction industry for more than one of five workers are unemployed. the bottom line is we have an opportunity to fix our broken-down infrastructure, get millions of workers back on the job and we also have a duty to the next generation of americans who are counting on us to make these investments in the future. so i look forward to hearing from the secretary about how we can make the smart transportation decisions needed to keep our company moving forward. thanks, mr. chairman. >> senator tuna. >> thinks mr. chairman and secretary lahood, thanks. nice to have you back and assistant secretary mr. bertram who spent some time appear in this committee. i appreciate you appearing

before us and look forward to hearing what you have to say. we know we've heard from you once that the budget committee and probably will leave in july on the finance committee i'm guessing as well but a couple of observations if i might, mr. chairman, about the administration budget for 2012. it does propose some sweeping changes in the massive increases of the funding levels for d.o.t. programs. the heart of the budget is a $556 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal this proposal would require an additional 231 billion in the highway trust fund which we would name the transportation trust fund over a six year period. the reauthorization also includes 53 billion for passenger rail at a time many states are canceling projects because the budgetary problems. i'm particularly concerned by the $50 billion up front transportation infrastructure plan for 2012 that sounds very much like another stimulus program. unfortunately the administration has left unanswered the obvious

and pressing question and that is how do we pay for these increases? in fact this proposal appears to be less of a budget and more of a transportation wish list at the time the tight budgets and fiscal constraints we cannot impose new taxes or fees on the american people still struggling to emerge from the deep recession. beyond the life of the funding for the proposals i have several other specific concerns i hope we can get addressed this afternoon. i understand the administration's proposed the user fee on the railroads to offset the safety program expenses. in my view this as a matter more appropriately addressed by this committee as part of the big of a rise in the legislation after careful policy debate and should not be counted as expected revenue in the d.o.t. budget proposal. additionally i am concerned about the creation of the 30 billion-dollar national infrastructure bank as part of the new transportation trust fund. i would request a careful review of the policy implications of the program we are proceeding. frankly i have great

reservations about this type of fund which i believe would principally benefit large metropolitan areas and ignore the needs of the rural states like my own. mr. secretary, thank you again for being with us today. i look forward to continuing to work with the dot to address the nation's transportation needs and i think you for holding today's hearing. >> thank you, senator thune. >> thank you for your work on the mexican trucking issue, something important to the growers in the pacific northwest and i'm sure i will get a chance to ask a question about that. i wanted to raise the last time before the committee we raised the issue of national freight mobility and working on tsp with the subcommittee chairman senator lautenberg and senator murray we introduced in the act last year. this recognizes the role of the courts play in moving freight that obviously necessary in the infrastructure that goes along with it and obviously it is something that creates jobs and very much needed boost to the

economy. i know that i will have a chance to address some of these issues but the gao or important in 2003 cited specific barriers to inhibiting the intermodal transportation, limited federal funding, targeted projects, limited collaboration, limited ability to evaluate the project so i hope we will hear from you today about the department in the current rate strategy orientation on the highway corridors and will sign a little where the coordination with the administration lies on such issues and the department's intentions are to create and freight mobility programs. i think these types of prioritization have worked well for our economy and the needs of the key infrastructure improvements tied directly to the jobs so i look forward to hearing within this budget proposal the priorities you can give to that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator campbell. we are going to have to close

the statements there and turn directly to you, mr. secretary. specs before mr. chairman and ranking member hutcheson and members of the committee think for the opportunity to discuss president obama fy 2012 budget request and the department of transportation just a few weeks ago. president obama delivered a powerful message on the state of the union and said to win the future our citizens, companies and companies need the most reliable ways to move goods and information and reminded us if they build a they will come. they want business to open shop and high the families and friends and neighbors we have to invest the roadways, railways and runways. we have to invest in 21st century buses, streetcars and transit systems and invest in the next generation technology for our skies and sidewalks and bike paths that make the streets more livable. all of this is included in the

president's 129,000,002,012 budget for the u.s. the board of transportation designed as a first installment of the bold six year 556 billion reauthorization proposal the lowest relative level of domestic spending since president eisenhower was in office six decades ago. that was ten administrations ago. the simple fact is we have to cut and consolidate things that aren't growing the economy or making easier, making it easier to do business in order to pay for the things that are so the department of transportation, president obama's budget slashes red tape and consolidates more than 50 programs and includes reforms that will accelerate project delivery and in power local communities. of course our major of objective is to make investments and to mauro that expand economic opportunities today. to dream big and build big hit

on the cover of the budget, there is a picture of a bridge that crosses the hoover dam, connect nevada and arizona. seven years ago or more people began planning for this bridge. and if it weren't for the big thinkers and the big builders of generations ago, we wouldn't have the opportunity to dedicate this. that's what this budget is about. that's what his vision is about, big and bold, just like people who came before us who have big positions, big bold view how we put people to work and build america's infrastructure. our budget keeps us on track towards the national high-speed system within 8 billion-dollar investment in 2012 and 53 billion investment during the next six years and increase its resources for the highway bridge improvements by 48% and increases funding for affordable efficient sustainable bus, streetcar and transit systems by 126%. it includes a $50 billion up front boost to keep the recovery

moving in the short term and a $30 billion national infrastructure bank that will finance major projects of national or regional significance over the long run. at the same time, safety is and always will be our top priority. president obama's budget reduce our commitment to prevent traffic crashes with resources for our ongoing campaign against destructive driving kimmage not driving and to promote seat belt use. the president's proposal requests new authority for the federal transit and attrition to ensure the safety of the transit riders across america and it gives the federal motor carrier safety administration stronger capacity to keep commercial traffic safe. finally, we are dedicated to doing all of this without passing on another line of debt to our children and grandchildren for the first time transportation spending would be subject to paygo provisions that insure the dollars we give out do not exceed the dollars coming

in. these are just a few components of the president's plan that reflect a much larger point, america's transportation system is at the crossroads. our choice isn't between policies on the left or policies on the right. the choice is whether our economic recovery rolls forward all calls backwards. it's up to us with a really a new foundation for economic growth, competitiveness and opportunity or we settle for a status quo that leaves america's next generation of launch appears our children and grandchildren with clogged arteries of commerce. it's up to us whether we do big things or whether we do nothing and if we choose wisely our legacy can be in the economy on the move and the future america is prepared to win. with that i will be happy to answer questions. estimates before, mr. secretary. the administration has said it's developing a comprehensive legislative proposal to support

the surface transportation authorization, reauthorization. and the president's budget request frequently references that proposal. however, weeks have gone by and we have yet to see anything. the committee's developing reauthorization legislation and such a legislative proposal would be helpful in understanding the administration goals and intentions for the reauthorization. we are working with our colleagues at the omb through the process of the legislative proposal and we hope to have one to you. it will be a reflection of the president's budget. >> we have that problem more than i would like. we have it on the cybersecurity. we have got four committees involved in cybersecurity and everyone has more or less figured out what to do with olympia snowe on this committee has a huge part of that. but we haven't gotten anything out of the white house and the

refrain increase is just a bit here in the senate. if we are to have an opportunity to pass this bill and move it quickly, we have to know where the money is going to come from. that is a big chunk which is on funded and as you referenced, the president said what he's not for which is raising the gas tax but he has a preference what he might be for and at some point we have to come to grips with that. >> mr. chairman we are prepared to work with you and other members of the congress and a bicameral way to find the resources we need. we want to put a bigger vision out. that's what the president has done, this is a big bold vision. it's the boldest vision anybody can remember a president has ever put out in terms of transportation. and we are prepared to work with you and others in the congress to find the resources to make

this vision a reality. >> and that does mean that his chain will be proposing along with us? >> we will work with you and anybody that wants to find resources to fund this big a bold vision. >> okay. is everything on the table for funding -- >> the president said very clearly threw me and others that he's not in favor of raising the gas tax and unemployment is at 8.9% and we still have a lousy economy. there are some people in this country who can little afford to buy gasoline let alone one that's been increased by increasing the gas tax. >> dalia understand and agree with that, but what might be on the table. and you can't answer it, i won't press it.

it's just it's comforting as you prepare for legislation of how you're going to pay for it. senator hutchison. >> mr. secretary i sit in my opening statement i am very concerned about what i consider to be extraordinary increase and the operations account of the faa at the expense of the capitol accounts and infrastructure accounts. so could you explain why there is a 400 million-dollar increase over fy ten in the operations account and if you're concerned that the diminishing the capitol accounts while we are trying to put forward in the next-gen which is probably the biggest thing that the faa will be doing

in the next ten years. if you want more clarification the fy 12 budget requests a 5% increase, .5% increase for operations the of what else but has a 5% increase for facilities the operations account would increase by 3%, by 5.5%. the of white weld budget request 1.2 billion. my point is this the of what of budget requests 1.2 billion for the next generation technology which has grown some 69,500,002,009 which is a 72% increase for the next generation technology. >> my staff tells me that you are looking at the up front, the

50 billion-dollar up front part of your bold vision, and that is including a $3.1 billion increase for the airport improvement program and 250 million for next-gen application. but from the general fund, and i'm asking why the operations account is going up so much in your regular budget process, not the up front vision -- >> let me ask our budget -- >> i apologize because i failed to introduce chris who is the secretary for budget. >> i apologize to mad because i forgot to mention -- >> the operations account for the faa has been increasing on average 3% annually and i feel we have a more concerned.

this year the increase is only half a percentage, probably the slowest that we have ever had. so i think it is something we are cognizant of to keep the operations at a reasonable rate of growth. >> keep in mind we had huge increases in the last two years some are looking at 2008 as a benchmark rather than the inflated spending that occurred in 2010 and 2011. my question is why are there so many more in the operations when you've had such increases in the last two years where is the effort to bring operations more in line with the 2008 levels or just knowing our fiscal house is

not in order why would we be increasing so much in fees? it seems like really throughout the department we are increasing so much in operational costs. >> on dfa side it is one of the smallest increases we have ever had in the proposed budget. the cost drivers for operations are things like utilities, hiring additional inspectors that work on the seat decide that the faa as well as increased costs. >> i think we need to look at how much of that is some more inspectors -- >> we can break that down where all the increases are. >> a smaller increase but you had to years of big increases which is not getting the message

that yes we have boiled visions you can't just keep throwing money at operations and create these big visions or implement these big visions. so i will be anxious to hear more details, mr. secretary. thank you. >> thank you, senator hutchison. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary lahood and assistant secretary bertram. secretary lahood, you and i had the opportunity to speak last week about the memorial bridge in portsmouth. would you still agree that is one of the worst bridges in america? >> is one of the worst bridges in america, senator, and that's the reason that we provided the money that we provide is that you all could have a new bridge.

>> certainly we appreciate the commitment when you came to fort smith to the project and wanted to ask you about the actual approval process that new hampshire and maine are going through right now. there is a process that is undergoing the preview and itself is as light understand it, we've already undertaken it in the past that was sufficiently completed 2008 and approved. are you familiar with about? >> i know all of the approvals will be completed in late summer, early fall. >> as we understand the review that was already approved, the one that has been resubmitted is very substantially similar, very few differences between the two. would you agree with me on that? >> i got -- i will have to

answer a few for the record on that. i don't want to say that i know the intimate detail that is similar to. i would rather answer you for the record. i know this, that based on a conversation that you and i had i went back and did the research on this project and was told by my staff that all the approvals will be completed by late summer, early fall. but on the specific question i will give it to you for the record. >> i would appreciate that because i had a comparison in front of me between the review that was already done and that has been resubmitted and there is really only one minor difference between the two. so given that, i'm asking you why we cannot expedite the review process within your office to ensure that a essentially as i see this very

little difference in paperwork that we have already done and have gotten the per full approval for a project as you know both states are deeply committed to see can have your commitment to expedite the review process within the department of transportation. >> absolutely you can have my commitment. >> i very much appreciate that and look forward to working with you want. >> on this project i want everybody to know that if the bill that passed the house is passed in the senate there is the last line of the bill that says any funds not obligated by february 11th will come back to the treasury. so i want to just let everybody know that, these are all the projects we wouldn't have funded then if we had known they wouldn't be good. these are projects that need this money and so we want majority understands that. you have the commitment to do everything we can to expedite

this project. >> i appreciate that, mr. secretary, and since having reviewed this which i know that you will do the commitment from both of our states have already gone through the paperwork process once i would hate to see the bureaucracy stand in the way between the project when we have gone through already the proper review so i appreciate your commitment to expediting the process within your agency because, you know, too often unfortunately the process itself, even though states have complied can be very onerous as you know. >> you have my commitment. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. again, now before we were having committee chair and ranking member comments. this is done by appearance there for senator lautenberg is next followed by senator cantwell then senator begich. >> thinks mr. chairman.

mr. secretary, as i said before, good work being done there and appreciate your effort and your skill and believe in your way through making sure the transportation agenda of the long. in florida governor rick scott said he rejects to $.4 billion in federal high-speed rail funds the northeast corridor could start putting the funds to use now to boost the economy and existing high-speed rail service and create jobs. if the funds are returned to the dot will the northeast corridor be a priority for these funds? >> we have a request from just about every member of congress on both sides of the capitol for the funds, senator. >> many of the senators and

representatives are from the northeast corridor. and we are working our way through how to process the reallocation. >> the bill proposed by house republicans has slashed funds to replace the 100-year-old corporate bridge and this bridge carries more than 400 trains and 180,000 people every day. one of the biggest passenger rail cars in the country. what effect might this have on the commuters and the northeast corridor if the house republicans had their way and the bridge doesn't get replaced? >> we are committed to working with you and others for the replacement of this bridge. it's absolutely critical for safe travel.

it's absolutely critical to the citizens of new jersey and new york and we remain committed to making sure the project moves forward. >> 2,009 president obama signed and to fulfill established marine highway great program. it's to promote moving more freight by sea and funding for the program was not included in the budget. now given on our highways on the roads shouldn't we be encouraging more freight to be moved by ships or barge at this point in time? >> last year, senator, i convened one of the first meetings that had ever been convened of all of the ports in the country to talk about the importance of the ports, talk about our commitment, this commitment to every port in the

country. we believe the marine highway which is a signature program, signature transportation program for our ad organization could be funded through the infrastructure bank. we believe that is a pool of money where good marine highway projects which we believe in and think are important to relieve congestion could be funded out of. >> well, while i commend the president's proposal for robust investment in our transportation system the budget doesn't specify how we are going to pay for these investments. the same time gas prices now keep going up with proceeds going to the big oil companies and countries that like us rather than being reinvested. what options are there to pay for the administration's

proposal? >> as i said to the chairman, we are committed to working with any member of congress who wants to be helpful in funding the big bold vision the president has for transportation infrastructure. >> we need a big bold bank account. >> thank you. >> that's it? >> senator caswell. >> psychiatry lahood, a couple different questions. one, the columbia river crossing is a big project for us in vancouver washington to portland oregon, and it's so it's kind of a one-of-a-kind when it's that big of a multi modal project including light rail to appreciate that it's in the president's budget proposal. so thank you very much for that. we have some questions for the record how the fda matches calculated so bear with us on that. but the larger question, with the federal highway at the

penetration and federal transit administration potentially in the design of the bridge and media tsa does it make sense to have someone in the secretary's office assigned the role of project facilitator when it's interdepartmental design issues? >> we had a meeting with both governors when they were here for the governors' meeting. i met with him on a sunday afternoon. we made a very strong commitment as we could make to the columbia bridge crossing. it's one of the very unique infrastructure projects that really reflects big, bold intermodal and includes highways and transit and includes freight and an opportunity for just about every mode of transportation. it also includes a lot of different funding sources which that's what makes it creative and very unique and i told both

governors that i would find someone within my office that would be on this particular project until we get to construction. .. on the mexican trucking issue, the press to relate the office issued said 52% and the agreement is signed.

and then talked about normalization. what is normalization to the mexican government? i want to confirm they are going to reduce terrorists by 50%. >> on the tv agreement is signed, 50% of the tariffs will come off. on the day the first track starts rolling across the border, the other 50% of the tariffs will be taken off. >> and that is the understanding of the agreement? >> that the understanding of both countries, absolutely. >> thank you, mr. secretary. back to my opening statement about freight immobility, what are the intentions in creating a dedicated program? and do you think that strategy is in your office or the way the highway administration? >> one of the things that we've done over the last two years under the tiger program, which

was 1.5 billion, which is half the money to free real friends. we want to enhance freight rail and we are doing this in a selfish way because we need are friends to hope the ability to get the high-speed rail program because there's not enough money to build numbers heckscher. we went to secrete freight rail system we have. we have reached agreements with a number of freight companies in the states that have received high-speed rail money. we are very pleased with cooperation that our friends in freight rail has given to us, not only in excess of money, fixing infrastructure for, reaching agreements with states. we have a good relationship with the class one freight rails has ever been developed over a long period of time, not only because of money they received, but the commitment they are making to the disused tracks. all of this has been coordinated through my office.

>> so what i talk about now is -- so that's great. it sounds like you're ready to take the next step to and coordinating for the physical transportation highway side of coordination of making sure if you're betting on the rail infrastructure, you've got to bet on the tracks in a cohesive framework to get to those rail in court nation with the ports. you know, obviously the more congestion in any kind of area like tacoma or seattle and if you don't have a plan can you not accosting consumer sound transportation, they are costing the movement of goods and services and we have a very competitive vancouver british columbia above us but is willing to take all this business if we don't get this right. >> so you are talking about track -- >> and coordination of the system together. >> yeah, i think we are committed to a court made system. we are working with the trucking

industry on their ability to continue to be competitive. they were particularly enamored with some of the proposals that were being floated around with respect to the mexican truck across border, but we met with them and work this out. we think the trucking industry is vital in all of this has been coordinated to my office and have taken a personal interest in meeting with the trucking industry in the freight industry in the port industry to really make sure there is a lot of coordination going on. >> gray. will have some suggestions that will appreciate you looking at. >> thank you, senator cantwell. senator begich. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. and our schedules have not met yet in the sense of getting to alaska. >> i hope to be here this summer. we are coordinating with your

office. we'll do whatever you want us to do at whatever time. if we need to be there a week or 10 days, we'll stay as long as we are welcomed. do not almost ready to stop asking questions. we had different scheduling but i appreciate our commitment. let me make sure he understood your question are the comments. i'll use your words, the bold vision. the reality is there's not a funding mechanism after the president the president is not recommending one. you're waiting to work with us, but there is no funding for it. i want to make sure -- >> well, we know the highway trust fund is a way to fund part of what we want to do, yes. >> so we have to figure out the cab. >> that's correct. let me -- i'm infrastructure bank, i am intrigued about it. when i was in when i was in may we talked a lot about infrastructure bank. how would you treat rural states

obviously in alaska we are is pluralistic and. so is it intended to have some recognition? will be hard-pressed to compete against a large community just because it do a calculation based on population, benefit people, so forth, so on. is there any consideration notetaker any -- >> if they like alaska can compete. certainly airport can compete for infrastructure money, come directly to the department and because of the port that you have -- >> correct, yeah,. i mean, i've met when they were here he met with them. they have a very good vision and the infrastructure bank will fit that vision. so we will be encouraging them to utilize now. and when it comes to rural america, rural america will not be left out. when it comes to roads, we know

there are some places and burrell america that need to enhance the rows and there will be opportunities to do that in our plan, innervation, either through accessing our highway funds for accessing the infrastructure bank, through leveraging perhaps some loan programs that we might have. we are committed to rural america, whether it's transit to teaming up with transit programs, but in the case of a state like alaska, we have to look for some innovative ways. we think the infrastructure bank is one of those ways to do that. and a regular transportation program. >> very good. this was not my list, but she made a comment and i want to make sure i understand it's more of an education to people who might be watching or in the audience here. a february 11 item you mentioned, that is then -- is that in this year that's coming over from the house i? >> that is in the bill that

eliminated $60 billion worth of programs. >> edison house bill one? >> yes, sir. h.r. one. if the last remnants of the bill. >> february 11 this year? in other words come as soon as it passes, you'll have to go crawl back resources that communities have may be in play already. >> any money that is not obligated before february 11 goes back to the treasury. >> said they may have a plant. >> they may be this close to it, but it doesn't make any difference. >> so you have to go back. what if they sign the documents public a figure 25 clicks >> on. the money goes back to the treasury. >> i want to make sure i'm clear on this, that even if today a community, a state, a city signed a contract, obligate the fund because that may not engage -- >> that's right.

>> obligates funds come up with an account by ready to be to tour the project. they've got bids going out or in some cases might have let the bid. you can come in and samsara you can't you can't spend that money. that's standing in front of us, has a one nighter in their. >> that's correct. >> i want to make sure it's clearing on the record, so it's not me saying it. i agree with you on this and want to make sure it's clear. this'll be a genius time you a callback might or might be obligated for a project to someone might do a summer construction project done. >> i really appreciate your ability to get clarification on this, senator. >> a member of the former metropolitan planning effort in the city of nature, obligations and monies are critical for summer construction season. >> that's correct.

mr. chairman, could i continue on this 12th? >> i'm not as smart as the secretary and i really don't understand the point you're trying to make. so when a something what he wants to say, could you repeat it again? >> i want to know how much money do you think will be -- i took amy colbert chars question here. how much of that risk for callback? >> we don't know. it's a lot of money. more important than that -- more important than the money part, it's a very important project for communities all over america. people are counting on these projects to solve the problems. that is the important point. i talked to a congressman today, a member of the u.s. house today who did not realize this provision was in not till. he called me about this project. >> well, if others will submit for the record because it took me off of my track, but that was

important. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator klobuchar. >> thank you, secretary lahood for your service. i know i've got people in the lobby that i'm going to see that have a road that's the danger is that the has held on through the years, but still not completed. i know there are a number of projects out there, including 14 down in southern minnesota victor. portend, so i appreciate your leadership, including the department of transportation's leadership with our 35 w. bridge. for me come the number one obligation is safety and that includes bridges like a 35 w. that went down and the ability to get funding when you have a situation like that happening. along the lines of safety, senator gillibrand at night introduced standup act to talk about teen driving in how we can have better graduated standards

across the country. teen drivers are three times more likely to be in fatal accident in adults. i know you know that i also want to thank you for your leadership on this subject of distracted driving. i know there is some funding in this budget for taking on the distracted driving issue. we now how, let's see, 20% of crashes are caused by people talking or texting on cell phones in this country. do you want to talk about how you plan to use that funding? >> well, what we would like to do in part is make grants to states for enforcement. we believe that the reason that 85% of the people are buckling up today is because the click it or ticket, which is a strong program to the department of transportation, where we gave grants to communities for enforcement. the one thing that is lacking even though now 30 states have passed the distracted driving

laws is that the police have a lot of other things to do and the kind of enforcement that we need. the two states who gave grants to, hartford and syracuse, and the first five days communities, they wrote 5000 tickets, the combined community state of a driving went down dramatically. we intend to use money for grants and also education. >> thank you aired secondly, last or i were you expressing my concerns about the pending lithium battery will and how it pertains to medical devices. my concern is the proposal not sufficiently take into account the reverse engineering testing and safety record of lithium batteries contained in medical devices. and so, i just wondered what is happening with abreu? >> senator, i'll have to put it on the record, but he will personally review no. i don't know the half today. >> that's fine. we'll put a question in writing.

the recreational trails program is very popular in our state. rtp is the federal administration program that provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails for both nonmotorized and motorist uses, including cross-country snowmobilers and many uses. i agree with proposals to consolidate highway programs, but he wanted to ask about your view of the rtp and what you see as a teacher? >> i think all these programs are good programs and we have combined the programs so we can make better use of the resources, but this is a good program. >> thank you. i else i wanted to -- he met with governor tate in a week or so ago about some of our rail projects. i wanted to thank you for your leadership conrail across the country and also the lrt line, the light rail line that connects st. paul and minneapolis. the central corridor and i look

forward to inviting you to minnesota when the line opens in 2014. >> i look forward to that. i also look forward to working with your governor who is a bit visionary when it comes to transportation. i have no doubt that minnesota is going to be in the high-speed rail business because of your leadership, his leadership and others in the state they want to really move on this. >> okay. thank you for a match. >> thank you. >> senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. always good to see you. i want to thank you for being available and responsive and i appreciate that very much as do many members of this committee, sci-fi or no remember. so thank you for that. let me ask a couple of sub issues on your cross-border trucking question -- cross-border trucking program and proposal.

first would be, we've had very serious corruption problems along the mexican border, with the customs and border patrol. i noticed there is a recent news story about one of the fm csa agents and canada having corruption issues. so that's a very important element to me that we not allow along our southern border are agents to become corrupted. as you know, there are lots and lots of drugs and not border and basically an organized crime, you know, mexican drug cartels are taking over down there. so i would encourage you and your staff to look at some of the things we have helped customs and border patrol in terms of polygraphs and background checks, et cetera. so i would recommend that to you as a model. the second thing is, i hope if you are doing this program, you hope you are using electronic onboard recorders as part of the base of the program.

>> that is a part of the program. it is part of the program when the agreement is signed will be included. we need that kind of opportunity to make sure we know hours of service and make sure they are complying with that. >> to me it's a very simple solution because it helps so much with knowing all the information. >> every track will be required to have an onboard recorder. secondly, in the future interstate corridors, we have to win our state that are not completed, interstate 4969. i know you met with a group of stakeholders and again, i appreciate you doing that. you also hold that tiger great money, not nearly what we wanted, but she did help with tiger grant money and i appreciate that. i am interested to know the level of this administration's commitment to those corridors.

and the reason i'm thinking this is so important is both of those and they're probably others in the country, but both happen to be north-south corridors. and with the improvements on the panama canal, my sense is they will be a lot more need for north-south traffic in this country. so how committed are the assisted administration and funding those corridors and trying to get some of the work completed in the relatively near future? >> well, having met with you a couple times, senator, and also with constituents, this seems to be completed and we are committed to working with your folks in your state and you do see that is -- both are completed. >> well, you appreciate that. in our state, high-speed rail is something that is certainly a policy we all consider as a nation. when i see the numbers there and

i see, for example, my state and many other states will directly benefit from high-speed rail and possibly indirectly, depending how you look at it, but i wonder if we were to make the same commitment for these corridors in question, just how quickly we could get this done. so, i hope it's ecotourists and i know you have a lot in your play, but i hope you'll consider allocating an equal or even greater amount to finish some of those future interstate. >> yeah, if you look at the president's budget, senator, we are committed big-time to roads and bridges. over $300 billion for roads and bridges. i mean, we are not trying to short change anything. we get it. i mean, what we are good at our roads and bridges. we proven that time and time again. >> well, thank you for saying that. this may be my last question, but the other question i wanted to ask is this.

that the safety programs has been fun into the highway trust fund in the program has church and appropriations. i understand your proposal in your budget you are trying to change this year, so in 2012 the department is proposing funding the entire agency to the newly renamed transportation trust fund. >> i'm going to let chris talk about that. >> senator, i think the idea for funding from the trust fund on both vehicles are disposed a bureau site is the basic concept that the taxes and trust funds are paid by motorists have been from the safety programs, just like we do for motor carriers and trucking safety programs. >> what you have enough revenue to do this? how do we pay for all this? >> the way we set it up is the existing money and the trust fund would first go for safety

programs, both motor carriers and nitsa. >> ester chairman, an officer talked about infrastructure. we need infrastructure, but it's hard to have a serious conversation about infrastructure with always talking about how to pay for it. and i know everybody has good intentions on this, but around here and here in washington, people like to talk about investing in the future and invest in infrastructure. until we come to terms about to pay for commentary to a serious conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we carry through. we are the same on morris. >> and now to the distinguished senator snowe. >> thank you. welcome, mr. secretary. first of all, but to call upon the question posed by the senate from new hampshire regarding the memorial bridge. i know what you reference in terms of the tiger fund and can turn that exists in the can to need resolution.

i share that concern. i am hopeful the united states senate with the ability to operate two amendment so we can address some of these issues rather than being denied that. i think there's a reversal of roles. the houses are for minutes in the senate is not allowed to in accordance with traditions of the united states. in any event, that's another story. the point is on the memorial bridge, obviously i really thank you i know speaking for both delegations here and saying that your support in coming to maine into new hampshire in order to present the $20 million check in describing the bridge is one of the worst in america. so obviously it's been the paperwork and the intent of regulatory requirements that have, you know, stop this project in receiving money. what can be done differently? i know it's taken more than six months for the paperwork to be completed, even though you offer the paper check back in a sober.

so what takes so long? is there anything we can do to expedite the process? >> well, i'm going to look at these two documents to see if they are so similar that we can really short circuit sometime here in order to get the agreements we need. >> it is pretty much the same in many respects, so i don't know if it airs much that that will deviate from the original model as senator ayotte has indicated. i really do think it's important because it's more than six months and not be a flea we should've been able to move forward on the project irrespective of what issues are here now. i realize that complicates the matter in terms of the ci or do will be able to address that issue eventually. >> well, i am going to give you the same commitment that i gave to the senator from new

hampshire. we're going to try and get this done as quickly as we can. look at documents of the weekend for some time time off. >> thank you. we appreciate that. secondly, on the question of trackway and i know that the safety issue is obviously within our jurisdiction. all of this is within your jurisdiction. and as you well know, this has been a primary issue for our state and other states, the state of vermont and others across the country that don't have the benefit of a trackway wafer on the interstate and this is what we are facing in maine. and i have discussed this with you before. i am just wondering, do you have any thoughts or ideas on how best to tackle this issue of standards and equity here so that every state has the benefit of opting for the truck weight limits? and now we are restrict you to 80,000 pounds. with like 100,000.

there's 31 states across this country that have wafers. so we asked myself come other than sending this issue for years and my other colleagues as well. i know when i first came here we are fighting the decision. ever unsighted safety issue. well, sure is a safety issue, but not the way they regarded. others claim it's a very small town in the five accidents and it's been a very compelling question. and so, we are saying we'd rather have these trucks on the interstate than going through some very small town and two lane highways through the small towns is raising some very serious issues when it comes to safety related questions. so i don't understand how 31 states cannot wafers and the others are denied even the ability talked into having a waiver program, especially now with high gas prices. these are fuel prices, safety issues.

i mean, across the spectrum it offers numerous benefits. is there anything you could recommend this approach is thinking of maybe giving you a waiver. you have the ability to issue waivers to those states don't have the benefit. the others, most of which have occurred through the legislative process. somehow we have to streamline this across the country so that everybody has the benefit of opting into the waiver program. >> i think given the fact that we deal in safety every day that we have very good safety experts, do we have a great team of people, that we can see the view of this from 30,000 bees so to speak. i think given the secretary the opportunity for looking at specific -- this is a very specific problem for your state. given the secretary the opportunity to look at it from the big view, from the safety view, a different safety optic

than other safety optic is not a bad idea and you concert they do that in a transportation bill. >> well, and certainly look at that approach. do what you have a level of standard because they show what it's like to see tracks are made through small towns. it is a serious question. then of course their economic benefits as well for the trucking companies and not the cost of energy. so i would hope we can work on that issue and perhaps there's one way of doing it. you can do it on a case-by-case. at least every state would have the opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator snowe. senator ayer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, just wanted to follow up with the house built in the language in it to clarify with you that the funding for the memorial budget is actually

take her to competitive grant funding. the specific language in the house resolution, continuing resolution actually applies through stimulus or arra funds. break out where we stand with the memorial bridge is if you look through the process and were able to obligate before march 18, the project can still go forward regardless of what happens with the house bill. so i just wanted to clarify that with you and i really appreciate not only coming to new hampshire as the senator from maine, but also your commitment to review the paperwork. i can certainly provide you -- i know you'll have access to the paperwork, but we did a side-by-side comparison as well. thank you very much for your testimony today. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, i think that is probably a professor with you? i must like to say another hour

or so? >> mr. chairman, you would like to spend another hour with you. >> one of the things interesting about these hearings is that there's a certain amount of national policy which comes in, but a lot of it comes back to local issues and that's called human nature. that's cause representing your state. there's there is no law or ethical value you can possibly promulgate would change that. but i can then send from time to time it would be frustrating to you because you're dealing with extremely large issues. i mean, just trucking and highways, faa. i mean, oceans, the whole thing. not oceans with you, but it's -- yes, no. but it's frustrating because you do deal with policy. we go back to your office and you're dealing with policy and

you see people come in and day out bridges and other types of things they care about. but you seem to have a very adaptable balance between the two. i mean, you are using responding to to people's needs without seeming frustrated or, you know, i've got to do. and yet, you're obviously very comfortable with the policy part. it's a very special honor to have you here. >> thank you. >> it's a big deal because we want to get a reauthorization done. i think we can. >> we appreciate that. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama stepwise 12 budget continues to meet the evolving threats and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational requirements.

>> at this meeting of the national association of attorneys generals, former acting solicitor general, walter dillinger predict the supreme court would uphold the new health care love. far worse was that general theodore olson participated in a discussion about the supreme court's current session. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> we invite all of you two are supreme court lynching. we have an all-star panel here to discuss the united states supreme court cases for this

term. we are on c-span in my name is roy cooper, the attorney general of north carolina and president of the national association of attorneys general. and to introduce our panel here, we will have walter dillinger, with a chair at a melanie myers law firm is losing professor of law at harvard university and has the herbert supreme court and appellate prep clinic as enacting solicitor general in the mid-90s. he argued many cases before the u.s. supreme court. the most solicitor in more than 20 years. we also have ted olson, a partner at gibson dunn and the creatures in washington d.c. office come a member of the firm's executive committee cochair of the appellate, group come a former solicitor, ted is one of the nation's premier appellate and u.s. supreme court advocates in a very cute dozens of cases before the court and i might add both of them

contributed to the national association of attorneys general is also fortunate to have dan schweitzer us are supreme court counsel. his principal and very important responsibility is to assist state appellate litigators who appear before the united states supreme court and he excels at his job. but tanks to all three of you for your time and for yourise expertise. a >> tnk you gill turn it over ton you.re and hono >> thank you, general cooper. it's a pleasure and honor to be here to talk about the supremeco court again. as he said, to supreme court bovocates and analysts of ourtaa time.roberts co what we thought we'd do is talk a little bit about the baathist court generally, then turned to some of the major and then court is hearing this turn questions from the audience so let's start with the roberts court. it is 2011.

it is quite a different court from 2005. the court went 11 or 12 years without a change in its membership. over the fast -- past five years we have we have had four new justices. they are different in a lot of ways from their predecessors. ted, it's can you tell us a little bit about how you think a change in membership has affected the court, how the roberts court circa 2011 differs from the rehnquist court that preceded it? >> thanks thank stan and i apologize for turning my back on those of you over there. you'll have to watch the television screen but this is an interesting broom. dan asked me to give a little talk about, or give some information about the court as it recently exists and i did some gathering of statistics. nothing secret here but i thought it was kind of interesting, as dan mentioned there has been for ben for appointments in the last five years. previous to that the court had

gone 11 and a half years, almost 12 years without an appointment which was the longest period in history without a new member of the supreme court and we have only had 111 justices on the supreme court of the united states. 44 presidents but only 111 justices including only 17 chief justices, so it is rather interesting that we can't have in this country a tenure on the supreme court that is so long, the tenure of retirement is getting longer and longer and longer. the justices are holding offices for longer period of time. the last four justices who did leave the court collectively averaged 28 years each on the court and their age of retirement on an average was 78 years old, so people are being appointed younger and they are staying on the court longer. and if you figure if you are on the court for 25 years, that is six presidential terms of the

impact of a justice on the supreme court is quite significant. the court hears -- sees 9000 approximate petitions every year in grants 75 to 80 so only 1% of the opportunities presented to the court actually turn into a supreme court case that is argued. another change that seems to be happening over the last few years is a greater degree of specialization among the lawyers who practice before the supreme court. now there is more solicitors general. there are more arguments by attorneys general as you know. former solicitors general, saw the statistic the other day in the last 10 terms of the supreme court former solicitors general had arguments of 357 cases in just 10 terms. and this term i counted, there has been 56 cases argued so far. in those 56 cases, 40 were argued by persons in the solicitor general's office either as a party or as amicus

and 30 former members of the solicitor general's office had arguments, so that is 70 arguments and 58 cases. of course there are two of sometimes three sides because of the court. the average age now is considerably younger than it was before five years ago when those appointments were made. the average age of the justices then was 71. the average age now with 64. aid of eight of the nine justices then had been appellate court, federal appellate court judges. appellate court judges justice o'connor -- the same is true now. eight of the nine are former federal appeals court judges. at the time of brown versus board of education the only one of the members of the court had been a former appellate court judge in the former system. there were two or three senators there was a former head of the fcc and there was a couple of

law professors but now it seems to be almost everyone is a former federal judge. there is a remarkable homogeneity on the court. people think about diversity but all nine come from two law schools. six from harvard and ruth ginsburg went to columbia although she did go to harvard. six of the justices went to harvard law school in three went to yale law school. six of them went to ivy league colleges and if you look at the nine resumes, you see harvard, he yale, rinsed and mentioned 13 times. so people are coming from the same place. there are six catholic members of the supreme court now and three jewish members on the supreme court. 50 years ago that was unthinkable. so what has changed enormously. another interesting little statistic is four of the

boroughs of new york city are represented on the supreme court [laughter] justice scalia is from queens, justice ginsburg is from brooklyn, joe does -- justice sotomayor is from the bronx and a leg in -- elena kagan is from manhattan. that means the next supreme court justice will be from staten island. we need that diversity. and if you think it is justices, justice is 18 of the 36 courts this year came from harvard or yale. 20 of the 36 clerks on the supreme court this year had previously clerked on the d.c. circuit for the second circuit or got 20 out of the 36 from those two circuits. and 20 of the 36 came from eight specific retro court judges so you will see that the justices and the clerks and the lawmaking in the supreme court is all coming from the same place. as you may like that if you are from harvard or yale and you may not think it is so good if you are from the west coast.

three women on the supreme court all from new york city. isn't that amazing? and then one more final fact and i will quit boring you with statistics. the supreme court has issued 22 opinion so far this term. as is sometimes the case earlier in the term, you see these five five-4 decisions at the end of the term and more unanimity because it is easier to write opinions when everybody is in agreement. but it seems to be even more remarkable is here. only 10 dissents, 22 times nine or eight in many cases because justice kagan has been recused in 15 of the 22 but only 10 of 22 cases. all the justices have written two or three opinions for the court except justice thomas. he hasn't written a single one for the court yet this term and here we are in the middle of march so to speak so there are

some demographics on the supreme court that tell us a little bit about what the court is in. >> a couple of comments on ted's very interesting statistics. the first is the fact that they for judges to step down and served an average of 28 years, i think is unfortunate. i think five or six presidential terms is too long for a justice to sit. it is a combination of life tenure and his desire to appoint the younger. >> you know you are on c-span so the justices that are their -- [laughter] >> anything critical i would say each of the nine is an exception. [laughter] but i do think appointing a justice at a young age, that is i don't think anybody should have that responsibility that has not yet had his or her first

midlife crisis. at least you gain some empathy and understanding for the weaknesses of the human condition more than young people have so i think that is unfortunate. i do think that the narrow range of background on the courts, they tend to be overwhelmingly judicial/academic. professors like ginsburg, kagan, it canady, scalia. we see that pattern. what we don't have on the court since justice o'connor stepped down is any justice who has ever held elected public office, and i think that is quite strikingly different from the brown court which as ted mentioned had three former jena senators and the governor of california who would then the vice presidential

nominee on the ticket that was expected to win in 1948 are expected to be -- there were at least three justices on that court, maybe four who were plausible -- my possible presidential contenders. i think sanders o'connor brought that to the court having been a state senator in arizona happening one elected office, having cobble together complicated legislative majorities. so i think it is led to a court that has in my view too little respect for politics. the court thinks more about doctrine and less about workability, so i think in that sense i would like to see whatever party or ideology the breadth of the court expanded. >> justice scalia has actually commented on that in one of his opinions or more of his opinions calling this rule elite, as if we are all coming from the same small law school, new england or

northeastern elite and we are passing down the laws for the rest of the country. he commented on that. of course he is part of that culture and so. >> think you wanted to comment reitzig duly honor to jewish justices, justice sotomayor and kagan. they continue a trend with the possible exception of the department of justice alito. every justice that has been named to the court i believe since justice scalia has been a nonactive -- or argument of the justice he or she replaced to the point that it is getting to be a virtual cacophony up there. i'm a hat general roy cooper. the court is asking 60, 70, 80 questions in a single argument setting so there is just a rather extraordinarily intense process of asking questions. i think it is, while lacking in

political governmental experience, is extraordinarily sharp intellectually. i doubt if we have ever had a court that is the equal of this one in terms of intellectual firepower across the board. i think ted is shaking his head in agreement with that. i know arguing before justice sotomayor i was arguing a case on behalf of north carolina. justice sotomayor's first term on the court, term before last and arguing against an excellent advocate carter phillips and he had a rebuttal. and he made a point that sounded really good. unless you knew that there is was a response to it, very very deep in the record and i was kicking myself for not anticipating the fact that a skilled advocates like carter would do that in rebuttal. is going to have no opportunity to point out what i thought the flaw in this excellent point was. he is halfway through and justice sotomayor says but in

the third counsel to the second appendix -- [laughter] i said whoa this is not with all due respect to north carolina one of the cases that was the headline case of the term and yet she was so down into the weeds in the case. just an example of how extraordinarily well prepared this court seems in people who haven't argued before or seen the court are really stuns to go through a couple of cases that aren't the big cases everybody has been talking about and how extraordinarily well prepared the court is on these matters. justice sotomayor is it very intensive sharp questioner. justice kagan seems to be a very strategic question her. i think she has brought a sort of taking sense of the court's dynamics to bear. when she asks a question it seems to go right to wear the critical decision-making point

is going to be in the case. she doesn't us the first questions. that honor usually goes to justices ginsburg or sotomayor but the question she asks is often one picked up by other justices who may be relatively undecided in the case. i want you to go back and finish her answer to justice kagan's question so i think she has shown herself to be, the skill she brought to bear in bringing together a fractured harvard faculty. [laughter] i was skeptical as to whether those would translate very well to the supreme court but i think they may have. >> i was talking to one of her colleagues just last night who said she is is the nature of a already. walter mentioned a number of questions. you said 60, 70, 80, 90. there has been over 130 questions during a one-hour argument so you are talking sometimes two questions per minute and they don't wait for

you to finish answering the question. [laughter] they sometimes don't wait for their colleagues to finish asking the question. so it is going full speed and as you all know they are all asking questions except justice thomas who just finished his fifth anniversary without having asked the question and his explanation for that is because i like to hear from a have a good. that is what you are up there for a not that my colleagues show off. [laughter] probably they are asking lots and lots of questions and walter that is absolutely right. each new appointment is for the justice on the court who is more active during questioning. one of the factors might be that now three of those four last justices that argued cases before the court, roberts, alito and kagan of course had argued cases, all three had been in the solicitors general office. i think they plus justice

ginsburg argued possibly 63 cases before the court so they have had experiences. they know what it is like. >> you would think they would show more sympathy for their colleagues. seriously, think of the 17 chief justices. john roberts is the first one who comes to that position from a career in which what he did for a living was being one of the best if not the single best advocate before the u.s. supreme court. so he made his mark as a professional, figuring out how to come up with an argument that five justices would agree with and i think that brings them to the chief justiceship within extraordinarily well developed skill set that i think over time will make him an extremely influential chief justice. okay, what are we turn now to some of the cases they work has

heard this term and decided. last week the court issued a decision that i know has disturbed a lot of people in the country and it involves a group of people engaging in a very hateful ugly protest at the funeral of a soldier who was slain in iraq and by one vote the court held that these people were shielded from tort liability in a suit brought to the father for the attention of infliction of emotional distress. walter what were the courts thinking there? >> this case involves marine lance corporal snyder who was killed in the line of duty in iraq. his father selected the catholic church in their hometown of westminster, maryland as the site for the sons funeral and the funeral was posted in the papers. this was yet another instance in which the westboro baptist church from topeka kansas

picketed and protested at a funeral. they had done this hundreds of times all over the country. their view seems to be that began a is overly tolerant of sin and that god kills american soldiers as they deserve it punishment. signs include, god hates the u.s. and thank god for 9/11, america is doomed. thank god for ieds. thank god for dead soldiers. god hates you and you are going to hell which was a sign that seemed most directed at lance corporal snyder. the family brought an action for various support liability claims including intentional affliction of emotional distress and prevailed in a jury verdict including an 8 million-dollar

punitive damage judgment that was remitted to $2 million. the supreme court held that action was hard by the first amendment. the opinion by chief justice roberts. events as the court sense of sympathy for the families. the chief justice says that the record makes clear that the applicable legal term emotional distress fails to capture fully the anguish westborough's choice added to mr. schneider's already incalculable grief, but on the legal question of whether the first amendment prohibits holding westborough liable for its speech in this case, the court held that it did prohibit liability for that speech.

a bipartisan group of senators led by mitch mcconnell on the republican side filed in support of the families. one of the major motivations for filing that brief was to try to defend from many collateral damage in this section the federal military funeral statutes that protect, that attempt to protect funerals of our arlington national cemetery and other military funerals from disruption and to try to distinguish that also to side with the family in the case. i think what the case turns on and it is important -- in one instance it is the waning endorsement and the faithfulness of the setting makes the courts first amendment endorsement even

more striking, even stronger. it shows chief justice roberts to be firm and a very strong first amendment can't. justice alito once again as he was in the animal brutality case is the outlier who sees more interest in privacy and other concerns than in the first amendment. this was a very strong reaffirmation of first amendment bias. it is possible is also a narrow decision, however. this is a jury tort verdict. and that raises very serious questions if you allow tort verdicts in circumstances such as these. as to whether the punishment will have a lot to do with hostility towards the ideas or positions of the people who are the defendants in the tort case. and that is compared with other kinds of statutory framework

make sit of great concern and one of the points that is hard to answer is the point that chief justice roberts made in his opinion where he said that had everything been exactly the same, but the sign said god bless america and god loves you instead of god hates america and god hates you, the defendants would not have been subjected to liability. it was what westborough said that expose it to tort damages so the chief justice use that to show the case turned entirely on the content of what was said. the possibility of a jury of awarding punitive damages can punish not just the interference but whether they agree with the message or disagree with the message being conveyed. what i want to emphasize is i think to those of you is that the court, this is what we hope

to do by filing an amicus brief for members of the senate, the court said we are not deciding and not passing on the fluidity of the 44 state statutes which attempt to protect funerals of protest or either of the two federal statutes in question. and i think it might be well to take a careful look at your state statutes and at the court's opinion and to see if there was even a possibility of expanding the statutes. that is, of creating a larger buffer zone than the 100 or 150 seats that is in some of the state statutes which of course you are talking 33, 30 or 35 yards, not very far for a family having a funeral or a time, place and manner. no matter what your message, even if it is god loves the deceased are god hates the deceased. you may not without the

permission of the people having the funeral come within that distance. if you think for example, it views as a model the statute in frisby against schultz, some years back where the supreme court upheld a ban on residential picketing an opinion by justice o'connor. a ban on residential picketing that was aimed at a doctor who performed abortions. others have been aimed at public officials picketing outside of their residents. at least picketing in front of a particular individual's house even though it is on a public sidewalk, a public place, that is one of -- because it is not a jury verdict in and it doesn't depend on what the messages. if you look at frisby against schultz and what you can do to poor habits residential picketing i'm not sure why the same for larger considerations would not apply if you are trying to create a neutral time, place or manner, content neutral time placer manner, a persona or

whatever beyond funerals, so as a look at some of the statutes i thought, i think they could go further and still passed -- pass muster on first amendment grounds further than they do both in terms of their content and in terms of distances if it is time place and manner so take a look at this and think about whether there is more that might be done to protect a funeral done not done back. at .. true. in fact the court mentioned that maryland had passed a statute, but it had passed it after these events had taken place so the court wasn't going to consider them. just a couple of other aspects of this case, it was a church but a small group and their basic as this was to draw

attention around the country and the people that were protesting were members of the church but it was the founder of the churcd for the grandchildren. that was a. they were utilizing the funeral of the service person to draw attention to their message, so they were appropriating the private act to get their message out and they have been very successful. i saw one of the daughters was on chris wallace's show this sunday. a pretty gruesome thing, but the courts, they were on public property. they were complying with laws. they were a thousand feet away and the bereaved could not see anything other than the tops of the signs, so it is a very fact specific case but it is still significant because it is an 8-1 decision, protecting disgusting, distasteful speech and it was an 8-1 decision a year ago when the

supreme court struck down the federal statute prohibiting the distribution of videos or films of cruelty to animals, the crush videos, awful awful stuff 8-1 again written by the chief justice in each case it was justice alito. so the supreme court is making a very strong statement with respect to first amendment rights, and we talked last year about citizens united case, so there is another one where the supreme court, that was much more closely divided that the supreme court is going to be very robust to protect our first amendment rights. >> this will be the last of i think it very compellingly written conclusion to the chief justice's opinion. speeches powerful. can stirred people to action, move into tears of joy and sorrow and as it did here inflict great pain.

on the facts before us we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. as a nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. .. are under the impression from that the protesters actually disrupted the funeral, that those attending the funeral were at the cemetery could hear the protesters and see the protesters but the father apparently was unaware of what was on the signs until that evening when he found out about it and thinking of an advocate about and how you have to bring the facts to bear. let me turn to the other firstte amendment keep the court has heard argument on involving the state.

it's california was very concerned about violent video games children were playingeo gs children were playing some in which the child actually play the role of torturing someone, reaping someone in the video game itself. the ninth circuit held that law which you need your parents' permission, the store, before they can sell it to the child violates the first amendment so ted, that me ask you this the first amendment gives children the right to obtain without their parents' consent these sort of video games? >> we will see. [laughter] >> i have to disclose a bias, i didn't file the case but i had the entertainment software association on behalf of my client, microsoft in the mid-court for the lawyer did argue the case. and i wasn't able to get to the argument that it sounded like the court is going to be very

skeptical of statutes like that. one of the reasons is it is very, very difficult to draft eight and meek lines and be specific. this statute said violent video games had to be labeled as violent and if they were labelled as violent if they couldn't be sold to persons under 18, 17 and lower and violent video games it's very difficult to define what that is in the statute used in connection with pornography and obscenity and the hope by california was that violence in and of a self might be put in the same category as pornography and obscenity isn't entitled to protection. because the violent video games were defined in terms of material which did not have any redeeming social largest

scientific historic cultural value, the question is what does or what doesn't and if it doesn't have any cultural value, doesn't have any cultural value to be two-year-old and people under 17 seóul kind of ways in which the statute is very vague. second, the court seems unlikely to sing about violence. it's all around us, it's in the bible, it's in the greek tragedies, kids playing -- blease to play cowboys and indians but he probably can't do that anymore. but that sort of thing, children engage in the second games. they are not expressive activity as i read the briefs california didn't contest the fact that its activity and expressive activity is going to be under the rubric brick of the first amendment.

you're not going to be a will to distinguish because they are interactive which these games are. technically all the media is getting to the interactive. we are living in an interactive world. and the concern that the supreme court had in the united states versus stevens case which was the cruelty to animals of video is the same kind of concern i suspect the majority of the court is going to have with respect to this statute. are we going to discourage activity which is whether you like it or not is a part of our society and something that might be protected by the first amendment. >> this case is not about whether you can make or sell these violent video games or what their children can view them or play them if their parents purchase them for them.

it's about whether they can be sold to minors. maybe the court got off on the wrong track we back in des moines or something i understand the role of first amendment rights but i don't understand why the state can't say you can't sell anything to a minor without your parents. >> of the supreme court has the same arguments on the internet case a couple of years ago, the ashcroft case, a lot of cases and ashcroft of course but this was the protection of internet protection of children so you'd have to have filters before miners could see disturbing adult material on the internet. the supreme court was concerned about the children but sensitive to the fact parents have some responsibility of what their children are seeing or not, number one, and number to come if you enact a statute that is intended to protect children you

are going to inhibit the production of the material can go longer be then sold to adults. >> you're going to say you have to put the word silent on it or you can be punished a thousand dollars every time it might be played or something like that. the penalties were quite draconian. the brief we filed suggested that that is going to cause manufacturers of the games to pull back, produce different games which means they won't have access to them or they will over label them as violent, and that will discourage people's use. it clearly doesn't like the idea that you can produce a game that is handed to 11-year-old with the whole purpose of the game is to torture someone and murder them and to be brutally violent towards them. the court isn't sympathetic to that but is to the ideas and not inhibiting but adults can see.

>> to what you say, there was one argument made attacking the law which is parents have to take responsibility for taking care of this problem, not statutes which struck me as an odd argument to make when that is going on that is being, sold to kids behind their parents back and so their parents don't have the option of intervening. but i think the first amendment seems likely here, too. >> why don't we turn to a different part of the amendment, the establishment clause. the court heard one case this term on the issue of church and state. it involved in arizona statute that provided tax credits for people who give money to organizations that provide scholarships from private schools i mean for private organizations that then give scholarships for children who attend private schools including

religious schools. and if i haven't muddied that too much what me ask you, walter, to talk about that case and especially the fact that the most important part of the case might not be the underlying merits of the establishment clause but different aspects of it. >> by far the most important part about errors on a christian school organizations versus them is the standing issue and this is a profoundly important issue and one liberals have always been by my life on the wrong side the why march under that banner. this involves a tax credit. individuals get tax credits in the amount to make a contribution to a charitable organization which organization provides scholarships to religious schools and the particular organization will be

defined by particular collections. so you can get good tax credits for giving money for scholarships to schools, catholic schools or whatever the religious basis is. and this would raise the question whether it violates the dissolution and calls the question is the challenge is brought by another taxpayer who is affected by this respect the 1960's in which the united states held the taxpayer had standing to challenge a federal expenditure program of aid that included religious schools and a taxpayer had a standing even though they couldn't show his own tax bill is affected at all.

this program wouldn't decrease his texas so what is he doing there and i think the iranians theory was that some tiny piece of the tax dollar was finding its way to the university of notre dame or whatever even though a tax bill was affected. i think that was fiction. he had no more stake in the outcome of the controversy than anybody else, and indeed, the money we pay in taxes doesn't get to the federal money. the can print money and spend it. we pay tax money to reduce the amount of inflation. if a tree that can be trusted to figure out a tax bill, take out cash and burnet you wouldn't have to sit and meet -- >> [inaudible]

>> that's right. >> i think what is troublesome about it is that the court felt the only way it could result the establishment clause is by making it the case for controversy and finding the standing so they could announce with the right constitutional rule was. i think that turns madison literally upside down. chief justice marshall justified the fact that the court got to rule on the constitution by a very simple device by saying we have a job to do. our job is to decide cases. we have to decide between the plaintiffs versus the defendants, the real case and to do our job would have to apply the law, the carter case is the constitution the law? is it unlike the declaration of independence or the star spangled banner or the pledge of

allegiance and they answered yes it was intended to be law. we have to apply it. it takes the other wall to do our job we have to interpret the constitution. nothing special about the black robe. >> by the time we get to cohen and chief justice warren our job would be to ultimate kaput planner of the constitution and we have to do that with regard to every issue and therefore if there's not a case we have to make one up and said they did it backwards. we have a lawsuit order to proclaim the constitution and the would-be useful for the court to say some questions are not for us to decide and that's fine. other institutions of government will in some instances be the final constitution decisionmaker and a useful modesty on the part of the court to understand there's nothing special about

their ability to proclaim the constitution. particularly in the court that is too seldom differential to the constitutional role of congress order of the president to say to themselves look we get to be that programmers only because we have a job to do in resolving the disputes and she doesn't like this law that she is challenging. she's got no stake in this case and this case ought to be dismissed it >> i think you make very good points although it is true justice marshall also medicine decided the law that gave the distinction to the case was unconstitutional so he performed a little magic himself. the unconstitutional statute allows me to decide the unconstitutional statute is unconstitutional. but i did here in a recent case i had a judge lets just say in a

federal circuit talking about the standing issues the supreme court is making up all these standing things preventing judges from deciding cases. preventing us from deciding what call is and i don't know why the supreme court is inventing all of this to keep us from doing what we want to do which is to decide whether things are constitutional or not. >> i'm guinn to be ruling that the designated rule is unconstitutional. [laughter] >> let's turn completely and looking a little of criminal law. the court has served cases, to confrontation clause and a miranda case so an act to amend the criminal procedure. the one the courts decide so far as the confrontation case on the michigan versus bryant. ted, here to talk about that? >> i want to talk about it just to make one point about the

dynamics of the court which i think is kind of interesting. it's not a big specialty into law but it's quite active in the recent years because justice scalia particularly feels the right in the constitution to confront the witnesses against one in the sixth amendment means what it says if you can't have someone coming into court we aren't coming into court and giving testimony to someone

s guston this one case in michigan versus brawley and that was just decided and the improper versus washington davis versus washington and california, diaz versus massachusetts. these are confrontational cases that have come up with in the last six years. the opinions for the court have been written by justice scalia said he really feels strongly about that. so now this case comes to thee onurt and the situation was thai there had been a person calling from a filling station mortally wounded he was still alive when the police got there and fight for six police officers questioned him and during the course of the questioning he said rick did it and that testimony or the statement was used against the defendant, the person, the victim was dead by this time and

that statement to the police officer was used as getting the conviction. and there was a testimonial statement that would be prohibited from use against the defendant with the witness wasn't there and the court cannot the other way this time. the second newest justice, justice sotomayor wrote the opinion and was six to two, justice scalia and justice ginsburg and the purpose for which the statement was elicited the person who shot the sky was still on the loose and a dangerous situation and the public from someone who was out there with the gun during the violence, they were not doing that to get evidence to put the guy in jail said the purpose for the interrogation was a

testimonial purpose is it was safety purposes. justice scalia went completely ballistic and now he is a writer as i think you know he doesn't hold back and he didn't hold back. he was being strangled by the spread of justice even though the brand new justice had five other votes with her on the finger and so i wanted to read i think it's kind of fun just decided some of the language on which justice scalia would use in an opinion and get away with it and still be friends the next day i hope. >> today's tale which is the condition of the police case is so transparently false and professing to be the that to mean this institution in its attempt to make the incredible plausible perhaps as an intended

second goal today's opinion distorts the confrontation to the spartans and we sit in a shambles and this is perhaps intended second goal. in other words, you are intending to wreck everything i wrote in the confrontation clause. you're not going to stand for it. he said instead of clarifying the law the court makes itself the obfuscate of last resort. [laughter] then if you haven't had enough that is just the first few pages. [laughter] he says these things, the court wrings its hands of the only virtual if it can be misnamed a virtue a final word about the court's active imagination the court in vince the world and were used the court's opinion he says is dystopian and then he puts a foot note defining of opposite of utopian in case the

jury didn't know what he was talking about. [laughter] he says it presents a distorted view, and in field of view and offers a revisionist , for the emergency, discredited logic, patently false, misunderstands the road map, 1,000 on principled distinction, but could he leave out? after coke in the decision he finally says short on the facts its short on wall. so i don't know. sorted said don't do this to me again. >> your view if he disagrees. [laughter] it's a very interesting dynamic. actually justice thomas concurs in the results of the five including justice sotomayor in the five person majority. what's interesting about this issue is the way the court

breaks down. there's a part here you don't normally think of as liberal or conservative or anything like that, but it's between legalistic and pragmatist. it goes back the same term is crawford, the seam split. the cases involving the sentencing guidelines between the justices who thought it was an unconstitutional to give judges the capacity to make the findings not made by attorney that enhance the degree of the that invaded the province of the journey as opposed to the defending justices who said this colin system doesn't work if everything has to be decided by jury. forget what they thought in 1791 or what they were giving in england in 1412. this isn't a workable system. that group was led by black. here's the breakdown in the cases. the majority to overturn the

criminal convictions were overturned the adverse for the criminal defendant, they were the conservative lists scalia and thomas and three liberal legal lists, stephen souter and ginsburg and then the defendants in the cases. she's justice rehnquist, justice o'connor, justice kennedy and justice breyer. and it's interesting to see how that plays out. chief justice roberts and justice alito has taken the pragmatist's seat formerly held by rehnquist and o'connor said the protest group remains, kennedy, breyer, roberts and alito. what has happened to squeeze a's majority in this case is that he's still got his justice

thomas who concurs especially in this case. >> on the same base in these other ones. >> but the -- what he has lost his souter and replaced by a former prosecutor. justice sotomayor and this is the first time my the we've seen what may be a switch and not come perhaps thomas would have made it inevitable in any event. but you see the first switch of the replacement of sotomayor moving and coming out with a pragmatic wall enforcement result partly as a result of sotomayor coming in. >> you are absolutely right. one thing justice scalia said is when he said of the one virtue that can be called a virtue, misnamed a virtue is it makes us easy to decide the way that we

would like to. what makes it easy to come out of the way we think it's fair and that is what you're saying. >> let me turn to a different topic. i read in the paper recently it appears some states are challenging the health care law. [laughter] one day this might think the supreme court. i guess the question for both of you is when do you think will make the court and what are your thoughts on what the court will do with it once it gets there? >> when will be decided by the supreme court is likely but not certain. it's possible it wouldn't go to this record if the court feels he formally upheld it. they struck down a major act of congress and the supreme court would have taken obviously. uniform among the circuits it's possible they might not but i

think at this point the expectations are such the justices will answer it. that means i think we can probably identify with some decision of exactly when it will be resolved and the will be the last week in june of 2012. and i say that because the case is well assuming the arguments in april and may in the circuit that would mean i think a decision of the circuits before they break and lose their set of clerks in august and the decisions than which means they filed in the fall and would go on the argument calendar. it doesn't matter, jennifer come federick, march because the court will spend the rest of the term. the decision will not be unanimous so there will be back-and-forth with the majority opinions. up until the very end which means the last week in june of 2012. there is nothing magic about that being a prediction.

i'm going to make a prediction in front of all of you and come back here. not only will the court uphold it on the don't think it is going to be as close as people think. itt could think chief justice roberts will confine the opinion to himself and. one of the reasons i think that is i can't see the chief justice adopting a constitutional position that 20 or 40 years

and there is the reason why if you think there should be universal health care could of course is a matter for political d date. this has always been the proposal would say republican senators, by romani and heritage which is don't use the model of the single governor system but encourage participation in the private market with a 2.5%. so the bottom of the day it is c.s. for closing the converse ability to use market alternatives is one reason and at the end of the day i don't think the case is that hard because regulating 16 of the national economy and giving it by giving people an incentive to purchase insurance which is 1944 has been regulated as a matter of interstate commerce is a regulation of commerce and the intrusion is not so great as to

require the carve out from what otherwise would be the application of the commercepoweh power surges quickly to close th to. t. what isn't so shockingly interests of it seems less intrusive than medicare andundeh social security so just in terms of other things shucking out at anything shocking about it, when you leave your place in the world and go to work in the economy only then does the federal income tax, your taxable income above 18,000 for a couple, then the penalty will apply if you don't have coverage so you have to go to the economy and when you go to work you find out the federal government has financial decisions on you. one is 10.5%, 15 if you're self-employed, you have to pay to take care of your old age

assistance of the special secure program. you have to pay to take care of your health care after you're 65 and 2.5% you have to pay if you don't maintain insurance coverage model you are under 65. nobody is going to look at that and say my god, this third one mean's there's nothing left in america that this third one is in that sense it seems less intrusive in that unlike social security and medicare you have a greater choice. you get to choose among the private market, the single-payer medicare proposal has always been the more liberal proposal, the more government takeover than the market approach. >> i don't have any trouble with the limited principal. i.t. to concede that the congress -- it's not so much the regulation of inactivity is an affirmative obligation.

in the affirmative obligation is the regulation and activity when the congress in 1792 required everybody to purchase a gun, ammunition and a knapsack nobody said my god this regulation activity. the set know they are using the militia power to the obligation. the same thing with other affirmative obligations like the schools inoculation etc. it's an affirmative obligation to the affirmative obligation where you might want a stronger justification to use the commerce power and to disassembly to the economy and create three products. but unless there's a special justification here is quite simple. congress creates a disincentive to purchase a product when it's a product that's related to a service no one can be assured they won't use and where the cost of acquiring it is going to be transferred to other persons and you put the statistics on

the table. 94% of the long-term unemployed have used the health care system. one third of the overall medical cost of the uninsured are paid by the uninsured and themselves and the effort to or transferred to other people. if hospitalization costs, the uninsured pay 10% and 90% is transferred to other people who are sick or the taxpayer. that means it is to we different from any other part of the yellow pages where none of that is true and a flat screen television, could they have a flat screen television ad? no coming and you know what's different? amazingly it seems like they might make final and i've been so that they haven't put aside money for a flat screen television i don't get to watch and say you have to give me a flat screen tv and transfer the cost to others. there's nothing like the emergency medical treatment act. there is no flat screen

emergency that requires you a flat screen television and make other people pay the cost of it. if there were you could see congress needs to put a stop to this by giving people an incentive to buy their flat screen television at that time. we let people die emotionally because they can't watch their team on a flat screen television. and we are unwilling to do that with health care and this financial incentive claims to be the distinguishable and where i think let me put it on the principle since chief justice roberts will write the opinion what will we with the argument when i testified before the house 17 members said if the supreme court upholds this there are no limits and congress can do anything it wants to read my reaction is that's right. if the court upholds it the congress can do anything it wants if the opinion says we are not holding it until the following principal. noeth limits anymore. [laughter]

but there is no chance whatsoever that is an opinion. they would instead emphasize what is unique about the health care market, its role in the economy and the cost shifting that goes on that creates the incentive to suggest resort to the private market. >> you had me going until you got to the flat screen part. [laughter] >> i did here right before that he said and you heard it here on television walter dellinger said it would be okay for congress to require people to buy guns so they could defend themselves so the government wouldn't have to pay for police departments, pay less for police departments because you defend your own homes and you have to go out and buy a gun. walter said that so we will have one of those bills pending in congress. [laughter] the other one we will have his -- since we need to have energy independence and one of the way some people say is to have lots

of electric cars. you can't have a lot of electric cars a musters a lot of places to plug those in every time you go 40 miles or wherever it is. so we are going to require in order to help energy independence and its commerce and in the best interest of the united states and so forth the next car you buy has to be in the electric car because there's a lot of people out there with electric cars and there will be a lot of people where you can plug them in. i'm offering another argument that there has got to be some limit to what the congress can compel you to do for the general welfare. now, i know you have a rebuttal but we are also running short on time. [laughter] i'm going to do what carter philips did to you. [laughter] >> one more thing i'd walter is probably right about timing of this unless the court is convinced on the petition of the circuit court judgment to skip

over the intermediate courts because 26 states are saying to the supreme court we've got to know, we have to do planning. some states have legislature's every two years. we have to planning for this. congress has to plan for this. to have to resolve that is a significant challenge to a major significant act of congress so let's get it over with you don't need a lot of the advisory opinions from the circuit courts so let's jump ahead of it. and it does come up and it decided in june of 2012. think of what fun that is going to be in a presidential election, the supreme court does or doesn't strike down the health care law so many people are concerned about and lots of people do not like. so in june of 2012 we

the house armed services committee today criticized the obama administration's recent executive order on guantanamo bay detainees. republican members of the committee are particularly concerned about the section granting review for detainee is subject to long term detention. he talked to reporters at the capital for about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon. im buck mckeon from californiac 25th district. is this on?nia 25th can you hear me? and i gathered here today by several members of the armedthe services committee to discuss t the belief in careful and comprehensive plan is neededl ar dealing with law of the warf intention for terrorists.fo while we are not going to detai a way out of the threats we face, the detention is adetentis critical tool necessary tosary o neutralize terroristsralize tern

valuable intelligence. previously been on president obama's speech at the national archives in may of 2009 he made a commitment to come together and create a path for work with congress. unfortunately, that has not happened. instead of the white house did exactly the opposite yesterday by emphasizing executive authority and a leveling significant criticism towards congress and calling our actions dangerous. we have seen this before. what i believe is dangerous are terrorists who wish to harm the united states. we have serious concerns about the substance of president obama's sanction order creating the new procedure for the guantanamo detainees. mr. rooney will concern these concerns in further detail. yesterday president obama also announced the resumption of military commissions at guantanamo. this is an important step to

moving forward with of the law we focused instead of prioritizing law enforcement. however noted yesterday was any reference to the disposition of the 9/11 case. tomorrow or shortly we will be introducing legislation to deal with the most significant problems raised by the executive order and other detainee issues. in the days ahead we are going to be working closely with ranking member smith and other republican and democratic members to make this a bipartisan fix. my colleagues are going to talk about the various aspects of the book is the asian that we will be introducing, stockley and the concerns we share and then we will take questions. first we will hear from mr. thornberry then mr. forbes, mr. wittman, mr. schilling and mr. griffin. >> thornberry thornberry from the 14th district of kent texas.

our time has come to deal with a lot of these issues straight on, not put a band-aid over at cannot give a wink and a nod and do one thing and say another but to deal with them head-on. one of the issues is the authorization for the use of force which as you recall was passed by congress in september, 2001, and focused on those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. as a part of what the bill does is to recognize the world has changed some in the last ten years. but as we have put more pressure on al qaeda central than the various offshoots and affiliate's have sprouted out in various places around the world, and this bill makes it clear that we are engaged in a continuing armed conflict and the president has authorized to detain those who are a part of or are supporting al qaeda, taliban come and associated

force is engaged in hostilities against the united states. this approach is along the lines that both bush and obama administration had actually been pursuing this approach is along the lines of the d.c. circuit court opinions. but we think it's important to put into law and make it clear and that is what this legislation will do. >> ayn rand the forbes from the virginias fourth congressional district. as the chairman mr. thornberry said this piece of legislation is important because it's time that we move on. one of the things the executive order mr. president has issued shows us is the difficulty we have when we introduce politics and the national security and also it showed the importance of having a consistency when we are dealing with guantanamo. when the president issued his first executive order it didn't

just delete the action so we could think about it in contemplating but one of the serious effects it had is if you went down to guantanamo and talk to the chief prosecutor, he had one of the best teams this country had ever seen to prosecute the worst terrorists that ever hit the united states to defend the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the prosecutor told us and would have told the president, would have told mr. holder he had been working for over 18 months, through 50 different motions and hearings and court and would have had guilty pleas according to him from all of the defendants within six months. that order that was issued in january before anyone went down and inspected the situation not only stopped the prosecution but it dismantled all of the teams that had been put together and dismantle all of the motions that had taken place, all of the prosecution that had taken place since that time so not only did

we lose 18 months of prosecuting the worst terrorist this country had ever seen but we have now been delayed from that time until today with no decision. we think it's important we have this piece of legislation to send a clear message to the administration and terrorists across the world we are going to prosecute these matters, we are going to prosecute them efficiently and it's time we move on and get the job done. >> i'm representing the virginia first district and in addition to some of the concerns you heard here, there are a number of concerns about the threats that the detainees place when the reader transferred to another country or supposed to be transferred to place is here and the united states and we know we are dealing with new and emerging threats from terrorists around the bold but the concern is how are we dealing with the transfer of the current

detainee's? our legislation would prohibit those detainees from being transferred to the united states and put that into law but also what would do is permanently limit transfers to other countries of the security issues that those countries can demonstrate that they would put in place if they were to receive the detainees. we want to make sure that they don't end up back in the battlefield and that's some of the concern as you look at recidivism and how we are dealing with that issue this would define how we address that and make sure those countries we might have agreements with to transfer are not places

or to other countries abroad. >> good afternoon, tom rooney from the 16th district also former member of the army corps all the light of speak for the army nice because a member of the armed services committee in this legislation as the chairman referenced in his opening i want to touch on just a few of the plants there may be cause for concern for those of us that are signatories of the legislation as of now. first is with regard to the habeas cases. the gitmo detainee's already enjoy unlimited access to attorneys and are able to take away the advantage of federal courts we do not need to create another layer of reviews of the lawyers can drag the government for endless litigation duringeni this time of war. our legislation allowslegi detainee's to have a personal representative for periodicon

reviews and that is consistentoo with our current handling of the detainees in afghanistan our military and intelligence tmmunity not the department oft justice should be leading our law of detention andthe intelligence the department of justice should note be involvedu in determining the national security threat the national to security threat and in individual poses to the united states or the potential intelligence value. our legislation provides a panel of military officers with expertise in operation intelligence and counter terrorism to make our related to the law of the war detention. i also mentioned a former member of the army jag cord as well as my colleague here. we have an amazing group of people as was mentioned sort of earlier that represent military

legal community. and that's both prosecutors and defense. and one of the things hopefully we can come away with today is the rule of law and due process would have the utmost respect and due diligence when it comes to the men and women who wear the uniform but also swear to uphold to defend the constitution and the rule of law so thank you very much. [applause] >> lenni ms. body schilling and i represent the 17th district that borders the thompson pris first i would like to thank the chairman mckeon for putting forg together the congressional task asrceto on gitmo. as was mentioned the presidentan took action of the consultingw the congress how to deal withion the terrorists to gitmog cohe ro gitmo. i find this totally unacceptable. and first of all, but i really

want to do is think the american people for the votes that allow us some 87 new freshmen to become members of congress and basically ensure gitmo will remain closed to the terrorists and then also we make sure we handle these through the military tribunals. i'm working with chairman mckeon to introduce the legislation double handle the detainee's and stop funding the construction or modification of any facilities inside the united states to house the gitmo detainee's to read and other words the legislation would need no detainee's and thompson illinois or anywhere on the united states, its territories or possessions except in guantanamo bay. i visited gitmo and it's a pretty nice facility. there's always one of the things i asked during the campaign is the fact that number one, why are we closing gitmo and will that make america any safer by bringing some of the world's most terrible people here.

i was unable to get a response to that but i am confident that this bill will ensure the terrorists be dealt with in the best interest of the united states. >> thank you. >> tim griffin from arkansas, too. i am currently serving as a jag officer in the army reserve. i do not speak for the army today but i speak in favor of this legislation. the critical part of what is going on down at gitmo and in the war detention is not just to detain the individuals but to collect intelligence, intelligence that can help keep america safe. and the criminal justice system does not allow us to fully attain the intelligence we might gather from the intelligence procedures under law of war. this legislation will require military cuts to the individuals

who can be detained under the law of the war to make sure that we are getting the information that we need to keep americans safe. obviously the threats we are facing today have no borders. we are at war. we must continue to take the fight to the enemy overseas wherever we may find them. but as we have seen, the enemy is trying invest to get to us here in the united states. we need to be prepared for that and our legislation is a recognition and first step and we prioritizing the intelligence gathering over traditional law enforcement. that is a distinction. we've included a waiver in this legislation that allows a secretary of defense to determine that someone could be held under the law of the war and should go into the

criminal-justice system. but in the default is these individuals should be brought into a system where the law of war government and military custody, and being in military custody will allow for continuous comprehensive intelligence gathering. they won't have to immediately go to a judge for example and they would have to and the civilian or criminal-justice world they don't get the mayor and -- miranda rights read to them. recognizes the difference between war and evidence gathering on the streets of an american city. thank you. ..

do you ever see that happening? >> i hope not. >> do you think congress could work to see in the united states? >> i shouldn't be flipping about this. i have condemned the president for not working with us. i think it would be pretty hypocritical to say we shouldn't work with him. i think we should work together to work on this problem and i would be happy to work with him. as i said we are going to be reaching out to the democrats on the committee and then the congress working with them and i'm happy to work with the president. we are all americans and hopefully one the same result, protection of our constituents. >> that will be unveiled this week with senator lieberman and gramm that deals with things like exclusions and other issues. that is going to be different from what you are focusing on today. are you working with him on

this? >> i've met with senator mccain and senator gramm and we are very close on this and working together on this. >> i just wonder if i might -- the first question for me personally comes down to the fundamental issue of the procedure when you talk about tk the article in time the detainees in the united states versus in the military commission the evidence e gathering and whether or not the gather jurisdiction would attach the full onslaught of the constitutional rights to contradict the evidence broughte gainst us or face our accusers oftentimes that evidence or the accuser cannot be revealed dueat

to national security issues andy to bring them into a new york city or any other american city would american city would've been a constitutional right which would throw them out of the window and probably run into sources and agents and evidence gathering may be called into question. with military commissions come you are able to guarantee full due process about the same safeguards we enjoy here. >> can imagine the way for? have you been in touch with anyone at the pentagon are the administration? >> not in detail. but we have talked to them. >> to the timetable for when you want to do this? is there any coordination with the fiduciary or intelligence? >> it would be under our

jurisdiction in our timeline -- it's going to be pretty busy. we are scheduled to have it go on the floor in may, so probably it will become whether rejoice as a freestanding bill or roll it into the past authorization bill. one way or another, we'll get it for sure. >> you are going to have a profession that would transfer release detainees to other foreign countries unless the secretary of defense in the host country meet certain criteria. just wondering what those are. what are you looking for? >> well, we've been very concerned with detainees and the recidivism rates are very high. we would want to have guarantees

that they would keep them safe and provide them the same kind of humane treatment they get at guantánamo. but at the same time on the limit them from having access to the battlefield and come right back and start shooting us. yes. >> do you know anything about the president's timing and o dors about radical sm? ..h congressman king series. we were hearing about the executive order for quite a while and we wanted to wait and see what they finally did. i wrote a letter to the president asking him to not do it, to work with us. he chose to go that route. >> i'm asking, with their executive order at all times? >> from a ca can.

it has nothing to do with representing king's hearings. it is tagged -- we had heard that one was going to be given. we had written to him, asking him if it to work with us. he chose to go the executive order out and we've been ready to go with this. so when he did that come a lot to move forward with our alternative. our alternative is the bill. >> you can note the timing is -- [inaudible] >> does anybody have any thoughts? >> we've been hearing about this executive order forthcoming since the middle of january. [inaudible] >> it is very difficult to

determine whether untruths somebody else is saying. [inaudible] have you done so? what are your plans -- [inaudible] >> we were very heard to keep the committee bipartisan in nature, focusing everything we do. and we have talked to the democrats about this. our staff is tagged -- i've talked to represent smith and will continue to work. my kids that can we've heard the executive order is forthcoming. he chose yesterday to release a inattentiveness different timetable little bit. [inaudible] -- have you heard from them at

all? >> yeah, yeah. i have met and talked to representative smith, the ranking member. he is aware of overdoing. think of the legislation for three weeks. and so, it is not something we were trying to blindside them with. i understand how politics works. even though we are bipartisan, the president is the other party and the other side is the same party. so i think they would be reflecting to jump out and say hey, let's go full bore against the president. it will take time and will work through the us. that's what we believe in. >> it's important to note that lashes the authorization bill focusing on guantánamo bay felt overwhelming support to the republicans and democrats and the chairman of the armed services committee stood on the

floor inside that when it comes to terrorists, there is no difference between the republicans and democrats, but we certainly expect it will continue and respond to your questions about the article recourse, it's very difficult to travel in the united states. so we think they will be a huge number of democrats in the legislation. >> last question, please. >> about libya, do you think the state should engage in an inner circle to persuade them to resist the opposition? >> would you like me to second-guess the president? is that what you're asking? [inaudible] [laughter] >> i don't think we'll engage them out at this time. the detainees, let the president is doing a great job of doing

nothing. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> according to ums demands. maritime experts from the u.s.

navy, the coast guard and they will canadian navy discussed the problem in washington d.c. the navy league of the united states hosted this hour-long discussion. >> good morning, everybody. i'm the managing director of planning events. first it was like to thank you m for attending today. this is very hot topic, interesting topicv and i'm surem we'll have interesting debates s as well for you all. first of all, that to give alike brief introduction. i we're the largest independent event company in the u.k. that operates around the world as nw well. pedigree portfolio is events ano conferences. our largest defense if the fbi, defense and security equipment and international. th this takes in the research is tw fullyor integrated tri-servicee

event covering land, sea, air and increasing the security. we are now seven months away from 2011 which will be for 13le to 16 of of september in london and we've got a host of new ex exciting developments ofci theoh show that we're introducing this year and many of them have acina u.s. focus from the u.s. forces and u.s. exports as well. after the session, we'll be here to answer specific questions ase mike american colleague whoseern faith in connecticut at the back of the room there.the room w. i'd also like to thank our cosponsors for today's press briefing. the navy league is are t not-for-profit organization witr more than 50,000 members spread across 250ead councils worldwid. since its founding in 1982, the navy league's mission has beeni to educate the american peopleei and their leaders about the importance of sea power to a

maritime nation and also to support the men and women of the usc services.ea ser i very much appreciate theiri full support to data back to recognize specifically the national dam breaches the national direct to for theirectr contributions to helping put this together together. but now for the core of today's event. the united nations estimates that the indian ocean piracy cost between five and $7 billion annually and though there are only a few attacks to make the news, they still occur on the basis with deaths of four american hostages. they are increasingly resilient, bold and at that give him a refining tactics by implementing triton exercises, increasing manpower, driven recruitment. and the real question is, how can the global community needs this evolving threat as the attacks expand beyond the horn of africa and the ransom demand

increase exponentially. i was like in numbers of matches $230 million in 2010, which is roughly about $5.5 million per share. we've assembled a panel of. so please be prepared to. we will for them to you now. first of all khmer rear admiral terrance mcknight. he has commanded ships of the u.s. navy as follows multiple assignments, and at the office of secretary of defense. assistant secretary of the navy and undersecretary of the navy. he assumed his duties as commander, expedition i strike group two in 2007. also, waddell join joined the real canadian in 1990 with nato come united nations and the other coalition forces.

he is committed to canadian ships and more recently served as combat officer in the third. he now serves as director of maritime structure for the royal canadian navy. on the left, captain alexander martin as executive officer to force the first marine expeditionary force. after three tours in iraq on the served with the marine expeditionary unit and worked in the middle eastern security forces on maritime assaults. last september, captain martin that his unit for michelin star in the gulf of aden, resulting in the apprehension of may finale entirely in to the rescue of 11 hostages. also, here is what we have assistant commander for marine safety security and stewardship in may 2010. he is responsible for developing and promulgating national safety, security and environmental protection doctrine policy as well as the

federal government and its maritime partners. first of all, would like to hear briefly from each of the panelists before we take questions today. first of all, canasta terrance mcknight for brief introduction. in my thank thank you for havine here today and thanks for the navy league to have this event. i just want a little background. i spent a combined task force 151 and january 2009. and this was, as a result of the increased piracy and the goals of aden. the united states navy decided we had to come out in the forefront and so i got a call from admiral who said stan of the task force. that was the good news. we set up a task force that that time with the coalition i had

myself on the uss antonio. i do british ship and its initiative. and both ships were definitely well-prepared for the d. tauro operations we face. two things that were significant about his, first of all, it was a coalition task force. i mean, we go in the modern world today and hear a lot of complaints that we fight with the united states is the master seapower. but we were not there is a task force. and today when i talk about it, i said it's a microcosm of what admirable that is the 1000 ship navy. we've got anywhere from 25 to 30 nations that are out there right now fighting piracy. the other significant thing is the united nation is firmly behind it. they were to u.n. security resolutions, 1846 that basically said it gave us all the necessary means to fight piracy in the somali baseman.

and also, resolution 1851, which the pullers alexa piracy. this is pretty significant. we have a coalition of the willing and we also have the united nations firmly behind it. so it's pretty significant that these task force are out there and they're fighting the pirate in doing a pretty significant job. a lot's been in the price in the last couple weeks saying that the task force were ineffective. i think you need to first combat can see there are two significant things i'm not that you have to realize. the eerie yet it self is 1.1 million square miles of ocean. that's three times the size of the gulf of mexico. so we say if we have 25 warships out there and you can do the math and say that their ineffective, it is kind of like saying there is crime in washington d.c. in the d.c. police department is not effective. they are very effective out there. it's just a vast ocean. and now they've expanded to the indian ocean, it compounds the problem significantly.

so i think the task forces are very effective out there and doing a great job. the other thing i just like to say is the maritime community has also taken significant responsibility out there. and some of the things that they done to deter piracy, whether it's increase the standard transit lane and basically take on the responsibility to combat the pirates. lastly, the thing everybody asks is how to resolve the problem? well, as sure as we can go into somalia and basically start wiping out people there, but who are the pirates? each of them don't have the patch on her i can stand up and say my pirate. one day these are pirates of the next either smuggling drugs or they could be smuggling people. so it's a very complicated problem. the big issue that was addressed is the legal system. when i was out there, we captured anywhere between 30 and

50 suspected pirates, but we had very little opportunity to get prosecuted. if they were going after u.s.-led vessel like in alabama, it's clear the u.s.a. jurisdiction. when you go into a situation for a pirate attacks a panamanian flagged vessel in u.s. stamps the piracy and says it goes back to the nationstate is doing to prosecute them? most of the time they say we just don't want to deal with it. so if the dot pitch in car. so it's a very complicated issue cannot be put to take on your questions after the rest of the panelists speak. >> thank you very much. what a number of points raised already on this complex issue. >> sure, thanks, tim. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide perhaps an international perspective, but a number of key things that the admiral has just

indicated. the importance of the coalition by humans, the coalition of bringing the capabilities of several nations abroad in tackling a truly international problem that is piracy and affects all of us. you might think it's a foreign issue. it's on the other side of the planet, so it shouldn't affect dispute the fact of the matter is 90% of all trade occurs by ciba significant importance community not only canada for the u.s. are in deep economy. the problem that occurs abroad affects all of us here at home. the importance of deploying forces to try and deal with the problem. one of the things that we of course know if that was in dealing with the problem, it is expanding at the same time as the admiral was just indicating. it spread across the entire indian ocean, read it to the shoreline with india. we've seen significant spikes in some of the attacks in originally in the gulf of aden, the violent indian ocean now. we cannot put enough assets, enough hard power or ships at

that problem when you're talking about the sheer geography and the sheer scale of the operating area the pirates are weakening. certainly some of the adaptive techniques, where we are looking at taking on motherships to take cargo and use them to advantage. it allows them persistence, further distance of the shore in less than the opportunity to not only use that platform to extend the range, to extend the capabilities, but they also sometimes used the crew to assist in some of their future attacks. we've seen a real change in some type dixson procedures. when i went over to the gulf of aden in the fall of 2009, november, i joined nato as the standing tasker. there are three principal western groups operating in the counter piracy campaign. nato is standing at maritime group one as one of the test groups. the e.u. has a force of well and one of the subjects of combined maritime forces in ct at math --

as the admiral is quite aware. that is the principle really national test groups operate in the area to try to do with piracy problem. at the same time, there's a number of any plant players that just depend on to japan, korea russia, china are working together to do with the problem. the deep with more subtle mandate. certainly whether they are escorting convoys to the goal for wegener protecting our national shipping. these are some strategies they are employing. i noted when we were operating there is despite national mandates, despite a few different approaches to how to do with the problem, the crux of the issue is that wanted to do something about piracy. so what we found if everybody was working together to share information, to exchange bits of information that might prove useful to locating pirate action groups to try to do with the problem in the shared responsibility i found a very construct development while we

were connecting our work over there. just wanted to put a little vignettes and kind of give you a sense of how we dealt with certain issues they are. and i know that we've got a bit of a strategic overlay any sense of the operational environment. or to put yourself into my position as the ship's captain and it's just the men's geography. and you're trying to reassure the shipping community that is obviously quite concerned about the problem. you can hear it every time they call on the radio. they see something suspicious. they looking for support, looking for the voice on the end of the radio to say we are here and doing our best to reassure you, to suppress any tracks the piracy. time and again, we would tear the jittery voice of the ship's captain full of fear, thinking that something was owing to happen. i recall one night where we heard the captain coming across

thing i see something suspicious. we immediately got on the radio to tell them we are on our way. and clearly what came to me was to hear the apprehension and as for his first to admit to hear the relief in his voice once we arrived in and to do what we could. in fact there were three in his vicinity that once we arrived he took off into the night. and his appreciation for the fact there was a naval force there, doing what we could do to try to suppress the facts before they could get on board and take a ship. so i found that time and again, that reassurance of legitimate mariners, those who want to use and need to use the, deceive, to make sure we can transfer cargo to keep our livelihood in place, to keep commerce moving. it's a legitimate use that's important in the reinsurance we provided by dealing with the problem that c. because ultimately other will do

what we cannot see, the problem is going to be solved to shore. until time occurs in the were going to be finding ourselves in a position to continue to do our best asset pricing acts of paris you. >> thank you very much. again, it's a good mix of the operation and strategic policy there. it's my operational colleague here. >> thank you for having me from a tactical date. i suppose the small unit to pressure can or piracy operations. i'll just begin our marks with september 2010, a remarkable day, not because the magellan star was recaptured. that's what we're trained to do with the navy and marine corps and all of our elements in the 15th marine expeditionary unit. it was a remarkable day because simultaneous need the 15th neo and the pillar was conducting operations across the theater.

and that day there were people arrested in pakistan, bomb strapped on television enduring freedom and the hostage rest do. so that is a remarkable commentary on what the navy and marine corps is doing in the importance of maritime influence i did see. it's a truly remarkable day. our role to force reconnaissance was to provide the 15th with an assault on the to the maritime reports. so my bro and that is a sickly of a bunch of talented individuals that they work for and i stay out of the of the way and let them do their job and that's basically what it comes down to a name on the radio telling that path all the good work they're doing. we were the proof of concept for the marine corps in 2008 from the commandant directed we stand up in maritime raid force and get back of search and seizure that distributed operations at sea. so we were that element. may 2010 we deployed the 15th

neo and conducted training operations throughout the pacific southwest and southeast asia in maritime assaults basically preparing for further coalition navies how to conduct the assault on these vessels. on the eighth of september, we had left task force 152 the week prior, which is the task force in the arabian gulf and we'd come into task force 151, which is what the admiral stood up down there. we're basically conducting convoy operations for the internationally recognized transit corridor. a couple days prior, monsoon season that ended and the only way i can describe it to you as the skipper their mention is it's kind of an eerie feeling. if you like you're in a bad neighborhood and i think you'd agree with that feeling. there's just a sense about what the goal for wegener site. a day later, the magellan star and another motor vessel were simultaneously pirated and i was on the eighth of september.

we were conduct dean aspirate operations, uss princeton was on scene as well as the turkish flagship who had just assumed command of task force one to one and it was sort of a perfect storm of events in that we had the task force commander on them. we had the u.s. princeton, in the dubuque, which was uniquely task organized to consult and pose little. so that the capability that my unit brought to the raid force that we can conduct an assault against and oppose target. annika september, we were prepared to go through the authority can one of the chain of command and came around to basically work that we launched the assault in the morning of the night, which were to advantage. we were able to use the nice to look at it to mannix and conduct detailed planning and other assets that were unsafe.

the pirates are basically saying they were going to stay on it and fight their way through this one. and basically within 15 minutes via we had the pirates apprehended, nine in total. the real work came the three-hour effort. as murphy courtesy of a head, the second attendee to begin our climate, we lost communication with the ships corinna said adel in the pirates made one last attempt to get to them. in short, and basically became a three-hour reach an effort to try to get into their said adel contract to rescue, culminating with a sickly happy to cut a hole and show an american flag patch through to let them know we are the americans and here to rescue any family came out and it was kind of a good close to that afternoon.

the big takeaways that i can bring to the table as a junior officer in terms of counter piracy or one that the task force does work, as the admiral said, is a phenomenal thing. of course there's complication and it takes a lot to truly curb what is going on now. the task force is a phenomenal thing. they're created. in terms of them are in navy team that are out there operating in task force in terms of tactics, speed, violence of action and mostly restraint. the leader out there was a professionalism that operated in the sailors that operated that they, certainly within saved multiple times and executed their target site at the highest level of restraint as they should. the level of professionalism that day was phenomenal.

the mainly navy team is doing great work. it's very complicated earbuds by the panel of strategy level minded thinkers are here. at the tactical level, the problem is solvable and i think we've proved that on the ninth of september. thank you. >> thank you very much. if i can just passover to the spoken piece,. >> we grappled with piracy and the streets of malacca and perhaps one of the silver linings under the cloud of that tsunami is eliminated many piracy vessels that were operating largely on government territories and the intercollegiate nation of indonesia. if you look back at our history, a book i would commend his jeffersons for the first war on terrorism, which is when the

barbary pirates were holding u.s. mariners hostage. in fact, a number of nations would frontload their annual ransom payments to the barbary pirates so they can continue commerce in that part of the globe. here we are in 2011. what has changed the events. the area of operations have expanded as well. those have been defined under the u.n. we are actually looking not doubling that over 2 million square miles because we are now seeing piracy events take place while offshore from there. the use of motherships now expanding the reach to cover the western shores of india and down into the shells and mall bias. the working thread expand and we are seeing this expand. this time appears the monsoon season, which is typically not

the most favorable for standard operations in the season is not going to change to the benefit of the pirate. so as we look at jeffersons foreign terrorism, you know, the marine corps hymn from the shores of tripoli, that was the land in asian but ultimately a lemonade of the barbary pirates. what we're looking at is a significant challenge shared rule of law, which does not exist in amalia, which does provide safe haven. these are not vessels that fly the jolly roger on the open sea that we can identify a legitimate deferment to legitimate urchin meant that's out there. so it's very difficult to do. we would call the department of defense kinetic operations. just yesterday i met with the national security staff and we are meeting with state department justice commerce, transportation, defense, department of homeland security, looking at a whole of government approach about other tools can